Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] icky low level linux stuff
From: jordan muscott (jordan_AT_no-future.com)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 19:14:21 EEST
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
Taybin Rutkin <trutkin_AT_physics.clarku.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Rob Kudla wrote:
>
>> Requiring a kernel rebuild before doing anything useful with audio under
>> Linux accomplishes only one thing: musicians who try it telling other
>> musicians that Linux sucks as an OS for music. It'd be like buying a
>
>At this point, the Linux kernel isn't suitable for realtime work without
>the lowlatency patch. This isn't the fault of the audio application
>authors.
>
>Taybin
so am i mad in thinking the stuff i've sequenced using shaketracker and ssm isnt tight enough? It sounds fine to me. For some reason i didn't consider patching my kernel when i built a new one a month or so ago...maybe i should have, but because i wasn't experiencing any problems it slipped my mind. Not that i wouldn't mind having the lowest latency possible of course/
I realise that when you've got countless tracks of audio going in a multitrack editor things like this get far more important.......i'm certainly would not argue with that.
Something else that springs to mind is, ive seen countless people using cubase vst over the last 5 years, and sometimes the timing was f***ing aweful to say the least ( ive also seen it perform ok, but even the midi alone without audio on that app sounded loose to me). Is Linux really any worse than this without a patched kernel.
regards, jordan.
-- look after the bits and the bytes will look after themselves
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jul 25 2002 - 19:22:22 EEST